The article states three theories of why Greeks had never created a burning mirror weapon to defend themselves. However, the speaker disagrees with each of the theories provided in the passage.
First, the reading posits that Greeks were not advanced in technology to create a device. However, the professor opposes this point by saying that the experiment has shown that ancient Greeks could have arranged dozens of pieces of polished copper into parabola shape to make large copper sheet. Greek mathematicians knew the properties of mirror to make a weapon effectively.
Second, the article claims that burning mirror might take long time to set fire on ships. However, the speaker counters this idea by saying that Romans' boats were not just made from wood, but there were other sticky materials, such as pitch. It was used as water proof substance to fill gaps between sides and also to catch fire quickly. So, Romans could fire within seconds and also when ship is moving.
Third, the reading asserts that flaming arrows were mostly used by ancient Greeks. However, the professor contends that Romans knew that flaming arrows were ineffective because it could be easily seen by enemies. On the other hand, burning rays can't see from mirror. So, burning mirror was effective to set fire on ships without even seen by anyone.
- TPO-30 - Integrated Writing Task A little over 2,200 years ago, the Roman navy attacked the Greek port city of Syracuse. According to some ancient historians, the Greeks defended themselves with an ingenious weapon called a "burning mirror": a polished co 75
- TPO-12 - Independent Writing Task Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? It is better to have broad knowledge of many academic subjects than to specialize in one specific subject.Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 70
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
The article states three theories of why...
^^^^^
Line 1, column 158, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...However, the speaker disagrees with each of the theories provided in the passage....
^^
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... the theories provided in the passage. First, the reading posits that Greeks we...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...f mirror to make a weapon effectively. Second, the article claims that burning ...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 262, Rule ID: EN_COMPOUNDS
Message: This word is normally spelled as one.
Suggestion: waterproof
...aterials, such as pitch. It was used as water proof substance to fill gaps between sides an...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... seconds and also when ship is moving. Third, the reading asserts that flaming ...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 250, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...nemies. On the other hand, burning rays cant see from mirror. So, burning mirror was...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, second, so, third, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 22.412803532 58% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1111.0 1373.03311258 81% => OK
No of words: 221.0 270.72406181 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.02714932127 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.85565412703 4.04702891845 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.2692115959 2.5805825403 88% => OK
Unique words: 134.0 145.348785872 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.606334841629 0.540411800872 112% => OK
syllable_count: 332.1 419.366225166 79% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 38.8061484789 49.2860985944 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 85.4615384615 110.228320801 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.0 21.698381199 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.53846153846 7.06452816374 78% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 4.19205298013 167% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.41030845537 0.272083759551 151% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.133085034162 0.0996497079465 134% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0728403346691 0.0662205650399 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.22440330206 0.162205337803 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0313709664343 0.0443174109184 71% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.8 13.3589403974 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 53.8541721854 116% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 11.0289183223 79% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.6 12.2367328918 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.77 8.42419426049 92% => OK
difficult_words: 46.0 63.6247240618 72% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.5 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.